Professional Documents
Culture Documents
same body of empirical evidence; however, some authors (choose to?) interpret
studies in favor of the existence of the CPH (e. g., DeKeyser, 2003; DeKeyser &
Larson-Hall, 2005; Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2001, 2003) or against it (e. g.,
Bialystok, 2002; Birdsong, 2005; Marinova-Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000, 2001;
MacWhinney, 2005; Moyer, 2004), whereas others maintain a more balanced view
(e. g., Muoz, in press; Scovel, 1988, 2000; Singleton, 1989, 2001; Singleton &
Ryan, 2004).
Studies exploring the CPH look into data from two perspectives: the rate of
acquisition and ultimate attainment. A widely accepted finding states that children
are slower at SLA than adolescents or adults. However, they tend to achieve higher
levels of proficiency in the long run. Both bilingual and early start foreign language
(FL) programs (Foreign Language in the Elementary School, FLES in the U. S.)
worldwide are based on the second assumption, but neglect the slower rate of
language acquisition in young learners. As will be seen in our discussions
concerning second language (SL) and FL education, this highly optimistic view may
lead to unrealistic achievement targets and disillusionment over time.
Recent Research on Late Beginners: Can Adults Attain Native Proficiency?
A number of recent studies on the age factor have inquired into adults
ultimate attainment. Differences between early and late-start programs in immersion
and foreign language contexts have also been explored. Research on ultimate
attainment was called for by Long (1990) and a number of recent studies explore
whether native proficiency is available to learners starting SLA after the CP. Over
the last few years, this research question has inspired several empirical studies
aiming to challenge the strong version of the CPH by identifying highly proficient
adult learners of an L2 who started SLA after the CP and are indistinguishable from
native speakers. These new studies go beyond the scope of traditional inquiries into
the age factor as they triangulate their data and apply mixed research methodology:
although some studies use grammaticality judgment tests following Johnson and
Newports (1989) seminal study, they combine formal tests of competence with
measures of performance. After testing post-puberty learners, authentic speech
samples are used in tests for native speakers to pass a judgment on adult nonnative
speakers. Other recent inquiries combine interview data and self-assessment with
performance measures (Bongaerts, 1999; Bongaerts, van Summeren, Planken, &
Schils, 1995, 1997; Marinova-Todd, 2003; Moyer, 2004; Nikolov, 2000a; Urponen,
2004). An important development in these studies relates to the variety of first and
target languages: successful post-puberty learners of L2 English, German, and
Hungarian were involved speaking over 30 languages as L1, for example, Bulgarian,
English, Farsi, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Russian, Slovak, and Ukrainian, among
others (Marinova-Todd, 2003; Moyer, 2004; Nikolov, 2000a; Urponen, 2004). In
this section five studies are discussed: in three projects the target language was
English, whereas in two others participants learned Hungarian and German.
The profiles of 30 post-puberty learners of English from 25 countries and
speaking 18 languages were examined by Marinova-Todd (2003). A control group
of 30 native speakers with matched academic backgrounds was also involved in her
study. Data were collected with the help of a number of formal tests and a narrative
task. Formal tasks included a previously validated grammaticality judgment test,
sentence comprehension tests, a standardized vocabulary test, a discourse completion
test, reading out a paragraph, and spontaneous speech (Frog story with visual
prompts) to evaluate pronunciation and fluency. Nonnatives performed on a
significantly lower level than the control group of native speakers on measures of
pronunciation, vocabulary size, grammatical knowledge, and narrative skills,
whereas no significant differences were found in semantic comprehension and on the
discourse completion task. Two of the participants were judged to have
indistinguishable accent from native speakers, and an additional six performed within
the native range in spontaneous speech. Three main profiles emerged for highly
proficient late learners: (1) Three women, married to native speakers of English,
attained native level across all domains. (2) Two participants (also married to native
speakers of English) were within native range on all measures, but in receptive
vocabulary. (3) Three other women achieved similarly high scores on all tests, but
they failed on both measures of pronunciation. None of them lived with native
speakers of L2.
Urponen (2004) studied a large group of Finnish women (N=104). The
majority of participants had learned English as a foreign language (EFL) prior to
moving to the U.S. or Canada and marrying native speakers of English. Data were
collected by a grammaticality judgment test and interviews. On the test 38 per cent of
the participants were indistinguishable from the control group of native speakers.
The best significant predictors of native proficiency included age when the study of
EFL began, education in the host environment, and length of exposure, but not age
on arrival. However, the group of youngest age on arrivals (12-15 years)
outperformed later arrival groups. On the whole, participants performance did not
decline with their aging. The length of exposure in years did not predict ultimate
attainment, as its relationship with grammaticality judgment test scores was shaped and the advantage gained from the study of EFL was noticeable even after
decades of exposure to English in the host environment. The test scores declined as
the participants age on arrival and the age of starting EFL study increased. As for
similarities and differences between the highest-scoring and lowest-scoring
participants, the top achievers had studied more EFL before age of arrival in the U.S.
and had more years of education both in Finland and in the host environment, read
more, and focused more on both their accuracy and communication skills than
participants with low scores.
Two parallel studies were conducted involving late starters of L2 English
and Hungarian by Nikolov (2000a). Participants in the first study were 20 adults
learning Hungarian; all of them started learning the target language as young adults
in Hungary. The second study involved 13 Hungarians all of whom started English
at the age of 15 in secondary school and some of them studied one or two semesters
abroad as young adults. Both studies involved control groups of native speakers.
Data were collected with the help of three instruments: (1) participants background
was explored with the help of structured interviews, (2) in a narrative task they were
who began their EFL study before age 16 and spoke two or more languages obtained
higher nativeness scores than the participants who began later. Whether they were
initially more able, or their earlier language learning experience of one or more FLs
contributed to their better ultimate attainment would need further research.
Pedagogical Programs Based on the Younger the Better Assumption: SL
versus FL Contexts
In bilingual programs in second language contexts, learners are immersed in
the target language so that they can join their peers in mainstream education after a
while and become balanced bilinguals. However, political agendas may clash with
this aim and research findings, as is the case presently in Californian public schools
where bilingualism is not seen as something valuable, but young children are
submerged into mainstream English classes. In comparison to bilingual education,
foreign language programs tend to set less ambitious but more complex goals. They
intend to expose young learners to an L2 not only for linguistic purposes, but to
allow them to develop favorable attitudes towards languages and language learning,
and to help them become proficient users of foreign languages as adults. For
example, a recent European language policy document states that it is a priority to
ensure effective language learning in the kindergarten and primary school, as in such
programs attitudes towards other languages and cultures are formed, and the
foundations for later language learning are laid (Commission of the European
Communities, 2003, p. 7). Besides socioaffective and linguistic gains, research on
early bilinguals (Bialystok, 2001, 2005) emphasizes that bilingualism is associated
with more effective controlled processing in children, as the constant management of
two competing languages enhances executive functions, and a higher level of
metalinguistic awareness (Cook, 1992; Cook, 1995); recently, similar results have
also been found for bilingual adults (Bialystok, Craik, Klein & Viswanathan, 2004).
In order to set realistic goals for early learners, it is essential to consider
what level learners in bilingual education achieve, and how long it takes them to
develop native-like proficiency in a L2. The research evidence shows that five to
seven years are needed, depending on the educational programs, to achieve grade
level norms in academic subjects taught in English (Wong Fillmore, 1998) and a
recent longitudinal study found that young children had strong accents after four
years of enrollment in English-medium schools (Flege, Birdsong, Bialystok, Mack,
Sung & Tsukada, 2005) indicating that native accent is not automatically available.
For a comparison of SL and FL programs, the ratio of the curriculum
available to learners in L1 and L2 is a key factor. According to Cummins (n. y.), the
results of three decades of research focused on three major variants of French
immersion program involving early immersion starting in kindergarten or grade 1;
middle immersion starting in grades 4 or 5; and late immersion starting in grade 7.
All are characterized by at least 50 per cent instruction through French in the early
stages; between grades 5 and 9 the ratio declines to about 40 percent. Students have
been consistently documented to gain fluency and literacy in French at no cost to
their L1 academic skills. By grade 5 there are no differences in English test
another. Writings were assessed for task fulfilment and accuracy, but not for fluency
or vocabulary. The oral test consisted of sentence repetition and picture description
(Harley & Hart, 1997, p. 388). The authors found that early immersion students L2
outcomes were much more likely to be associated with a memory measure than with
a measure of analytical language ability, whereas the opposite was the case for the
late immersion students, for whom analytical language ability was the only
significant predictor of L2 proficiency (Harley & Hart, 1997, p. 395).
The follow up study aimed to explore the relationship between age, aptitude,
and other variables on a bilingual exchange (Harley & Hart, 2002). Participants were
26 10th and 11th graders staying with a French-speaking family in Quebec for three
months. Students had been in core French programs since grade 4 or earlier. The
same measuring instruments were applied and a questionnaire was also designed to
collect data on students experiences in the host environment. The findings indicate
that analytical language ability did influence learning success but less consistently
than among late immersion students in the previous study, and memory for text was
less relevant than for early immersion students. It is important to stress that in both
studies the authors assume that age of initial intensive exposure is qualitatively
different from age of initial exposure. However, it is unclear why this should be the
case and what the criteria for such a distinction should beand this question leads us
into the applicability of these findings to FLL contexts. A further question may be
how early exposure to an L2 will influence learners L2 learning orientations, and
how it may impact on learning L3 or further languages (see positive relationship
discussed in Urponen, 2004).
What is known from research on the CP and immersion students has
important implications for young learners of FLs: (1) young children are slow at
developing in the target language, therefore they need a longer period to achieve
levels adolescents and adults can achieve faster; (2) they benefit from meaningfocused activities; (3) they rely very little on explicit rules, declarative knowledge,
and inductive/deductive reasoning skills; (4) but rely on their memory and procedural
knowledge; (5) because young learners tend to surpass adults in the host environment
in the long run, classroom instruction providing children with opportunities similar to
natural SLA are appropriate in FL contexts; (6) early language learning experiences
may enhance childrens cognitive control; (7) there is no reason to assume that the
L2 will have a negative impact on L1 if it is also developed in parallel; (8) both early
and late immersion programs contribute significantly to learners development.
Thus, it is impossible to decide whether early or later immersion program models
should be favored. (9) It is possible that an early start contributes to young learners
attitudes and motivation, which later ensure good proficiency; in other words, most
probably it is not the actual early language gain that matters in the long run. SLA is a
life-long enterprise; both proficiency and willingness to maintain and develop it
further are crucial. Finally (10) teachers need to be proficient users of both
languages and able to apply age-appropriate methodology.
Early Foreign Language Programs: Issues
10
11
12
Individual Differences
Young children are assumed to be more similar to one another than
adolescents and adults; they are expected to succeed without difficulty, and fewer
individual differences are expected among them. Due to limited access, however,
some sort of selection and streaming is often implemented, although typically almost
nothing is said about the criteria and the process. Criteria often concern learners
school achievements, aptitude, and socioeconomic status. Research in European
countries provides insights into these areas. In contexts where not all learners are
placed in early FL programs, placement is arranged mostly on parental demand.
Research has revealed that in Hungary, for example, 5 per cent of the students,
mostly Roma, are never given an opportunity to learn any FL (Nikolov, 2000b)
formally because of learning disabilities, but the reason is that village schools do not
offer early L2 instruction and when pupils transfer to an upper grade in a bigger
school, they lag behind their peers. In contrast, in Germany a number of pupils with
learning difficulties get early foreign language instruction geared towards their needs
(Kubanek-German, 2000).
Learners socioeconomic status and parental support are rarely addressed
explicitly, although in contexts where the private sector offers early programs,
socioeconomically advantaged childrens parents are more able to afford them. The
aptitude of young learners is a generally under-researched area. Children are
expected to develop basic interpersonal communication skills easily, but cognitive
academic language proficiency is also necessary in the long run to be able to use L2
literacy skills.
Gate keeping and streaming are sometimes based on learners abilities along
the claim that early FL instruction is not for everyone, but for the more able only.
For example, in a Slovakian project (Farkasov & Biskupicov, 2000) involving over
1,700 first graders (age 6) learning one of three FLs (English, German, French),
pupils were selected on the basis of tests of school readiness, verbal, and nonverbal
abilities. Successful learners achieved significantly higher scores on the nonverbal
intelligence test than unsuccessful learners, whereas the latter had more neurotic
tendencies and made perception mistakes. As for their family background, parents of
successful learners were better educated, used foreign languages more frequently,
and more actively. Also, they offered their child more active support (e.g., practiced
and revised material taught in school) than parents of unsuccessful children. The
study concluded that because of differences in cognitive abilities and emotional
balance, not every child is ready to start a FL at age 6.
Two recent studies examined how young Hungarian learners abilities
contribute to their achievements in EFL at the age of 12. In a context where the
tradition of streaming is strong and EFL tends to be provided for the more able
learners, in a study involving over 400 learners from 10 schools, 22 per cent of the
variation in English performances was explained by their aptitude (Kiss & Nikolov,
2005). In a large-scale study on nationally representative samples of over 10,000
learners of English (age 12) learners scores on an inductive reasoning test predicted
14 per cent of the variance in their performances on reading tasks (Csap & Nikolov,
2002).
Attitudes and motivation have also been explored in some contexts, because
one of the arguments for an early start is to develop childrens positive attitudes. It is
widely assumed that early foreign language instruction will, as a rule, contribute to
childrens favorable attitudes. There are counter examples from recent history, for
example from Eastern European countries where, although Russian teaching started
early (at age 9), negative attitudes also emerged at an early age. As for more recent
examples, a lack of motivation has been observed in the case of Austrian pupils after
the compulsory introduction of early English instruction (Jantscher & Landsiedler,
2000). Several other studies combined enquiries into linguistic and psycholinguistic
outcomes. A longitudinal Croatian study (Mihaljevi Djigunovi, 1993; 1995)
explored learners attitudes and motivation in various languages on a large sample
over an extended period of time. The longitudinal results showed that young
learners initial motivation was closely dependent on their attachment to the teacher,
while as they progressed in the FL both instrumental motives and liking the FL as
such became important. The main finding, however, is that FL learning motivation
was maintained and often enhanced during the eight-year period. This and another
longitudinal study that extended over 18 years exploring the development of
Hungarian students attitudes and motivation (Nikolov, 1999) have shown that the
most crucial motivational factors function on the classroom level: the teachers role
is extremely important, together with intrinsically motivating and cognitively
challenging tasks tuned to learners age and level.
A large-scale Irish project (Harris & Conway, 2002) involving one of four
FLs (Italian, Spanish, German and French) from grades 5 and 6 pointed out the
importance of both interest and ability for listening comprehension, and stressed
adverse effects of difficulty with either the FL or any of the main school subjects on
overall linguistic and communicative competence.
Finally, there is not enough empirical research on how children interact with
their peers and their teacher while doing tasks appropriate for their age. Good
examples of how teachers and peers can scaffold pupils learning are hard to find (for
exceptions see e.g., Gattullo, 2000; Nikolov, 2000b).
Early versus Later Start
Two carefully designed and documented longitudinal projects have been
implemented in Spain in recent years. Both projects explore early and later
introduction of EFL into the school curriculum of bilingual (Catalan-Spanish;
Basque-Spanish) learners. The Barcelona Age Factor (BAF) Project (Muoz, in
press) started in 1995 and involved 2,068 participants. It aimed to find out whether
age has an effect on the rate of FLL, whether older learners surpass younger learners
the way they do in natural SL context, and how age affects different language areas
during FLL. Data were collected after 200, 416, and finally after 726 hours of
instruction. Measures were tests of speaking, listening, writing, and reading in EFL,
13
14
15
16
of any qualification is typical. For example, in the Czech Republic, 76 per cent of
primary teachers were unqualified in 1996/97 (Faklova, 2000), whereas in Hungary,
over sixty percent of them are retrained Russian teachers (Nikolov, 2000b). In
Poland, there are simply not enough teachers (Komorowska, 2000), whereas in
Belgium native L2 teachers are not allowed to teach their L1 (Housen, 2000).
Two general patterns involve classroom teachers with low proficiency but
age-appropriate methodology and familiarity with the curriculum, and the specialist
teacher, who is more proficient, tends to focus on the target language and often
applies inappropriate and demotivating methodology. The relatively low prestige of
early L2 teachers in public schools is often in contrast with their higher prestige in
the private sector (Nikolov & Curtain, 2000). Teachers beliefs and motivation are
also hardly ever researched. In certain contexts teachers do not share the enthusiasm
of parents and other stakeholders. For example, in Hungarian lower primary
classrooms, teachers were observed and interviewed (Lugossy, 2006; Nikolov,
2002b). It turned out that very few found satisfaction in teaching young learners,
they wished they could stream them and teach the more able only, or teach older
learners; they perceived games and storytelling as a waste of time, and looked
forward to proper teaching in later years.
In-service training programs prepare teachers for the job, but there is not
enough research on what teachers actually do in the classrooms before, during and
after methodology treatment. Mostly cross-sectional enquiries are applied (e.g.,
Gattullo, 2000; Nikolov, 2002b), but no longitudinal studies are available. As for
what teachers do, a cross-sectional nation-wide study in Hungary inquired into how
frequent and liked classroom activities were with 12-year-olds in English and
German classes (Nikolov, 2003). The most frequent tasksand the least popular
ones - in both languages included translation, reading aloud, grammar exercises, and
tests. The least frequent tasks were listening to tapes, viewing videos, role-play, and
playful activities and these were also the most popular.
It is surprising that there is no study on how teachers proficiency, especially
pronunciation and fluency, contributes to young learners language development.
This is all the more shocking in the light of the arguments discussed in relation to the
CPH. One might wonder how childrens pronunciation is influenced by the teachers
nonnative oral skills. Even the most carefully designed longitudinal projects avoid
focusing on the teacher and discuss findings without an analysis of the quality of
teaching (e.g., Garcia Lecumberri & Gallardo, 2003; Muoz, in press).
Conclusions and Implications for Future Research
The first part of this chapter aimed to overview recent research into the age
factor and the CPH. As a point of departure we discussed theoretical perspectives and
overviewed studies inquiring into what late beginner adults can achieve. The second
part of the chapter discussed language policy and classroom implications of the CPH
for second and foreign language contexts. The arguments for early instruction can be
summarized around the following points: (1) studies in child and adult SLA research
17
18
indicate that the length of exposure may influence SLA in a favorable way, though
the longer the exposure to L2 does not guarantee better outcomes automatically; (2)
as the general curriculum for learners expands with age, one of the areas of
knowledge that could be acquired early is an L2; (3) in a globalized world, early L2
learning may contribute to understanding and appreciating different cultures, values,
and speakers of other languages; (4) the ability to use two or more languages may
enhance cognitive development and metalinguistic awareness, and thus, may
influence the L1 favorably through raising awareness and may encourage the further
language learning. However, for early FL programs to be useful, certain conditions
must be met: (1) learners need to have positive attitudes towards the L2, its speakers
and language learning; (2) the content and methodology of the programs, transfer,
and frequency need to be appropriate; (3) proficient teachers are needed who not
only speak both the L1 and L2, but can also apply age-appropriate methodology
successfully.
Finally, further research is necessary in a number of areas. Longitudinal
studies are needed with a focus on the quality of the learning experience over time
integrating linguistic, cognitive, and affective factors contributing to young learners
development in a variety of contexts with different L1s and FLs. It would be
necessary to research case studies of both good and bad classroom practice: what
children and teachers do in which language, how they interact with one another, how
teachers scaffold childrens development and what materials they apply and how,
how peers contribute to classroom processes. In other words, it would be necessary
to explore classroom practice over time and triangulate data collected from learners,
teachers, and observers.
Research is also needed to set realistic achievement targets and to explore
how aptitude, attitudes, motivation, anxiety, and other factors contribute to outcomes
over time. It would be useful to examine how young learners cognitive abilities
develop, how their L2 learning contributes to being open and friendly towards other
cultures, and studying further languages.
The role of the L1 has been neglected; therefore further research is needed
into how two or more languages interact with one another, and how children show
developmental sequences typical of their L1 and the target language in different
skills. For pedagogical applications, it would be important to explore how contextembedded, cognitively undemanding tasks can be shifted towards cognitively more
demanding ones.
Additionally, retrospective studies are also necessary to identify the ultimate
attainment of early L2 starters. Organizational factors including the age of start,
amount of exposure, content teaching, and transfer also need to be researched. The
amount and role of extracurricular input should also be integrated to find out how
exposure to L2 outside the classroom (e.g., from television) contribute to young
learners development. It would be helpful to establish minimal criteria for schools,
teacher education, and classroom practice to avoid the pitfalls of the past. Applied
linguistic researchers willing to direct their work to any of these important
pedagogical areas would hae much to contribute to the potential for improved
practice.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Garca Mayo, M. P., & Garca Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds). (2003). Age and the
acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters.
This edited volume combines theory with practice, as it provides an
overview of current research issues, as well as a detailed account of a special
project conducted in Spain. The first three chapters discuss theoretical
issues: the CPH (Singleton), phonological (Leather), morphological, and
syntactic aspects (Marinova-Todd) of acquisition. The other six chapters are
written by a number of researchers on how English as a third language is
acquired in two bilingual communities: the Basque Country and Catalonia.
Cenoz explores how age influences general proficiency, attitudes, and code
mixing. Garca Mayo examines the relationships between age, length of
exposure to EFL, and learners grammaticality judgments. Three age
groups phonetic perception and production were examined in the chapter by
Garca Lecumberri and Gallardo. The older students outperformed younger
learners on both measures. It is important to point out that these inquiries
concerned learners levels independently from their teachers fluency,
accent, or methodology. Lasagabaster and Doiz examine maturational
constrains on students written production with the help of error analysis and
by examining fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Once again, older students
were better. The oral skills are studied in Munozs chapter; the findings are
controversial. The last chapter (Victori & Tragant) explores learner
strategies in a cross-sectional and longitudinal study in primary and
secondary age groups. The book is a perfect example of the expertise and
longitudinal research methodology increasingly typical of studies enquiring
into early modern language programmes. It is based on solid theoretical
grounds, the chapters are focused along burning issues related to such
studies, and the chapters contain mostly quantitative analyses along
comparative lines. The research methodology is almost spotless, and the
accounts are deep and well formulated. The outcomes are systematically in
favour of later beginners. Some decisive factors, however, are missing from
the edited volume: there is no data on teachers proficiency or classroom
methodology. Therefore, it may easily be the case that the differences the
chapters document convincingly result from what children are exposed to.
As the book contains no information on instructional practices at schools or
on teachers fluency, accent, motivation, and other features, the reader
wonders about the validity of the huge effort put into the study.
19
20
Moon, J., & Nikolov, M. (Eds.) (2000). Research into teaching English to young
learners: International perspectives. Pcs: University Press Pcs.
The papers in this edited volume are arranged into four sections: (1)
general issues and setting agendas; (2) the large picture of international and
national findings; (3) teachers of young learners; and (4) classroom-based
research exploring the smaller picture. The studies illustrate the
controversial characteristics of research into what factors interact in the
teaching and learning of English as a foreign language in primary schools
and they document the level and status of empirical research into an area
where practice has been on the increase since the early 1990s. The book
documents the typical weaknesses in research, as they are not all welldesigned or triangulated. Studies tend to involve only one or a few teachers
and their learners, there is a lack of longitudinal inquiry, triangulation is rare,
research is conducted by enthusiastic classroom teachers or qualified
researchers without appropriate funding, or when the funds run out, the
project and research end. Some of the papers are general in scope, whereas
others are deeply embedded in the socio-educational context of the country
where they were conducted. Most of the authors explore a variety of
European socio-educational contexts, but American and Bhutanese
participants were also involved in the empirical studies.
Moyer, J. (2004). Age, accent and experience in second language acquisition.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
The volume examines the experience and ultimate attainment of 25
educated immigrants to Germany from a number of different countries
(Britain, France, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Turkey, US). The author
explores not only participants language achievements, but also how their
ultimate attainment was influenced by their opportunities and intentions by
drawing on quantitative and qualitative data. She collected data with the
help of three sets of instruments: (1) a questionnaire surveying biologicalexperiential, social-psychological, instructional-cognitive, and experientialsocial experiences; (2) controlled and semi-controlled production tasks
(reading out words, a paragraph, spontaneous speech on an important or
embarrassing situation, recital of short sayings or proverbs); and (3) semistructured interviews. Speech samples were judged by three native speakers
on a 1 to 6 scale. Performances on the reading tasks turned out to be the
least reliable indicator of proficiency in German, whereas natural speech
production was found to be the most reliable. Moyer found weaker
directness and independence of age effects than suggested by earlier studies
and identified four criteria to describe the quality of access to L2 and
experience with L2: duration; quality of experience; consistency over time;
and intensity or extent of orientations.
Singleton, D., & Ryan, L. (2004). Language acquisition: The Age Factor (2nd
edition). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
This volume is not simply the second edition of the seminal book by
David Singleton (1989). It is significantly wider in scope, though the
structure has been maintained. The book provides a panoramic overview of
age-related research into language acquisition. The first chapter discusses
evidence of speech milestones in early language development, whereas the
second and third chapters inquire into the evidence for and against the
existence of a Critical Period in L1 and L2. The last two parts of the book
outline theoretical perspectives and discuss the educational dimension of L2
learning and teaching. The authors maintain a balanced view of the
sometimes controversial evidence, discuss issues in depth. The book is a
great professional pleasure reading on the issues related to the age factor.
Vrhovac, Y. (Ed.) (2001). Children and foreign languages III. Zagreb: Faculty of
Philosophy, University of Zagreb.
This is the latest sequel of publications on the 8-year longitudinal
research project looking into early learning of four foreign languages by
young language learners in Croatia. The chapters included in this edited
volume focus mainly on language learning outcomes of young learners
during the period when they were between 10-14 years old, while language
development in their earlier stages was described in the first two sequels.
Among the areas covered are those related to learning grammar, lexical
aspects of language acquisition (multi-word units in young learners speech),
strategies young learners make use of during vocabulary acquisition and
writing in the FL, and autonomous reading of unabridged literary texts. The
volume includes theoretically oriented research texts reporting on
approaches to investigating young learners in a particular area (e.g., reading
skill) and project findings, as well as reports on practical teaching issues
(e.g., using games or the Internet in FL teaching) written by teachers who
taught in the project. The chapters are written in one of the four foreign
languages taught included in the projectEnglish, French, German, and
Italian. Those not written in English are provided with an English summary
at the end of the book.
OTHER REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and
cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J.
F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417-432). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
21
22
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism,
aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology
and Aging, 19(2), 290-303.
Birdsong, D. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In J. F.
Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 109- 127). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A., &
Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school
education. London: CILT.
Bongaerts, T. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 pronunciation: The case of very
advanced late L2 learners. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language
acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 133-159). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bongaerts, T., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1995). Can late starters attain a native
accent in a foreign language: A test of the Critical Period Hypothesis. In D.
Singleton & Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The age factor in second language
acquisition (pp. 30-50). Clevedon, Avon: Multingual Matters.
Bongaerts, T., van Summeren, C., Planken, B. & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate
attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 447-465.
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in
the balance. Windsor: NFER Publishing Company.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English: General
proficiency, attitudes and code mixing. In M.P. Garcia Mayo & M. L.
Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign
language (pp. 77-93). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chiswick, B. R., Lee, Y. L., & Miller, P. W. (2004). Immigrants language skills:
The Australian Experience in a longitudinal study. International Migration
Review, 38(2), 611-654.
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Cook, V. (1995). Multicompetence and age effects. In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel
(Eds.), The age factor in second language acquisition (pp. 52-66).
Clevedon: Multingual Matters.
Common European framework of reference. (2001). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Commission of the European Communities (2003). Promoting language learning
and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004-2006.
www.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang_en.pdf
(retrieved on 11 December 2005)
Cummins, J. (n. y.). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned
from 30 years of research on second language immersion
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/immersion2000.html (retrieved on 22
December 2005)
Csap, B., & Nikolov, M. (2002, April). The relationship between students foreign
language achievement and general thinking skills. Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. (2004). Languages and childrenmaking the match:
New languages for young learners, grades K-8. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). London:
Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R., & Larson-Hall, J. (2005). What does the critical period really mean?
In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism:
Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 88-108). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Edelenbos, P., & Johnstone, R. (1996). Researching languages at primary school:
Some European perspectives. London: CILT.
Faklova, Z. (2000). A baseline study on FLT to young learners in the Czech
Republic. In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young
learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 79-92).
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Farkasov, E., & Biskupicov, K. (2000). Teaching English from the first grade of
primary school: Phychological and pedagogical perspectives. In J. Moon &
M. Nikolov (Eds.), Research into teaching English to young learners
(pp.121-136). Pcs: University Press Pcs.
Flege, J. A., Birdsong, D., Bialystok, E., Mack, M., Sung, H., & Tsukada, K. (2005).
Degree of foreign accent in English sentences produced by Korean children
and adults. Journal of Phonetics, 33(3), 263-290.
Fretz, R. (2000). Early language learning in Switzerland. In M. Nikolov & H.
Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern languages in
Europe and beyond (pp. 71-78). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Garca Lecumberri, M. L., & Gallardo, F. (2003). English foreign language sounds
in school learners of different ages. In M. P. Garca Mayo & M. L. Garca
Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language
(pp. 115-135). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Garca Mayo, M. P. (2003). Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgements
in the acquisition of English as a foreign language. In M. P. Garca Mayo &
M. L. Garca Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a
foreign language (pp. 94-114). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Gattullo, F. (2000). Corrective feedback and teaching style: Exploring a relationship.
In J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Eds.), Research into teaching English to young
learners (pp. 295-311). Pcs: University Press Pcs.
Gattullo, F., & Pallotti, G. (2000). Baseline study on FLT to young learners in Italy.
In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and
modern languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 51-58). Strasbourg: Council
of Europe.
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the
critical period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological
Science, 14, 31-38.
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (1997). Language aptitude and second language proficiency
in classroom learners of different starting ages. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 379-400.
23
24
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2002). Age, aptitude, and second language learning on a
bilingual exchange. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and
instructed language learning (pp. 301-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Harris, J., & Conway, M. (2002). Modern languages in Irish primary schools: An
evaluation of the National Pilot Project. Dublin: Institiuid
Taengeolaiochhta Eireann.
Hasselgreen, A. (2005). Assessing the language of young learners. Language
Testing, 22(3), 337-354.
Hernandez, A., Ping, L., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of competing
modules in bilingualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 220-225.
Hill, D. (2000). Adding foreign languages to the elementary school curriculum: The
Italian experience. In J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Eds.), Research into teaching
English to young learners (pp. 137-152). Pcs: University Press Pcs.
Housen, A. (2000). Foreign language teaching in primary schools in Belgium. In M.
Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern
languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 133-146). Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2001). Age and L2 learning: The hazards of
matching practical implications with theoretical facts. TESOL
Quarterly, 35, 151-170.
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C.
J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 539-588). London: Blackwell.
Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., Tigi, M. E., & Moselle, M. (1994). Reexamining the critical
period hypothesis: A case study of successful adult SLA in a naturalistic
environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 73-98.
Jantscher, E., & Landsiedler, I. (2000). Foreign language education at Austrian
primary schools: An overview. In M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early
start: Young learners and modern languages in Europe and beyond (13-28).
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language
learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of ESL.
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Johnstone, R. (2002). Addressing the age factor: Some implications for languages
policy. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Jzsa, K., & Nikolov, M. (2003). Az idegen nyelvi kszsgek fejlettsge angol s
nmet nyelvbl a 6. s 10. vfolyamon a 2002/2003-as tanvben. [Levels of
performances in English and German in year 6 and 10] Budapest: OKV.
Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. 2005 Edition. (2005). Brussels:
Eurydice.
Kiss, Cs., & Nikolov, M. (2005). Preparing, piloting and validating an instrument to
measure young learners aptitude. Language Learning, 55(1), 99-150.
Komorowska, H. (2000). Young language learners in Poland. In M. Nikolov & H.
Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern languages in
Europe and beyond (pp. 117-132). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Kovaevi, M. (1993). Foreign language acquisition in children: Some evidence
from testing English with first graders. In M. Vilke & I. Vrhovac (Eds.),
25
26
Mihaljevi Djigunovi, J., & Vilke, M. (2000). Eight years after: Wishful thinking vs
the fact of life. In J. Moon & M. Nikolov (Eds.), Research into teaching
English to young learners (pp. 67-86). Pcs: University Press Pcs.
Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 81-108.
Muoz, C. (2003). Variation in oral skills development and age of onset. In M. P.
Garca Mayo & M. L. Garca Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of
English as a foreign language (pp. 161-181). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual
Matters.
Muoz, C. (forthcoming 2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: the
BAF project. In: Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon,
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Nakamura, A. (2005). English immersion of toddlers on the rise. The Japan Times.
28 December, 2005. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgibin/getarticle.pl5?nn20051228f1.htm (retrieved on 8 January 2006).
Nikolov, M. (1999). Why do you learn English? Because the teacher is short: A
study of Hungarian childrens foreign language learning motivation.
Language Teaching Research, 3, 33-65.
Nikolov, M. (2000a). The CPH reconsidered: Successful adult learners of Hungarian
and English. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 109-124.
Nikolov, M. (2000b). Teaching foreign languages to young learners in Hungary. In
M. Nikolov & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and modern
languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 29-40). Strasbourg: Council of
Europe.
Nikolov, M. (2001). A study of unsuccessful language learners. In Z. Drnyei & R.
Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical
Report #23, pp. 149-169). Honolulu: University of HawaiI, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Nikolov, M. (2002a). Issues in English language education. Bern: Peter Lang.
Nikolov, M. (2002b November). What do teachers of young learners claim and do?
An empirical study of their claims and practices. Dijete i Jezik Danas/Child
and Language Today. 2nd International Conference, Osijek.
Nikolov, M. (2003). Angolul s nmetl tanul dikok nyelvtanulsi attitdje s
motivcija. [Attitudes and motivation of learners of English and German]
Iskolakultra, XIII(8), 61-73.
Nikolov, M., & Curtain, H. (2000). (Eds.). An early start: Young learners and
modern languages in Europe and beyond. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Nikolov, M., Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J., & Ott, I. (in preparation). A comparative
study of Croatian and Hungarian 8th graders' performances in English.
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Rixon, S. (1992). English and other languages for younger children: Practice and
theory in a rapidly changing world. Language Teaching, 25, 73-93.
Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical
period for human speech. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Scovel, T. (2000). A critical review of the critical period research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 20, 213-223.
27